CommentStreams:65ab1ecb705bad724ed072589cdb8c27

I agree with Katya, that the essay works well as it is. I also think that the relation to other modes of platforms is interesting. E.g. smart watches (see e.g. Tkacz, Nathaniel. 2022. Being with data : the dashboarding of everyday life. Cambridge, England ;: Polity Press.), the synchonicity of social media (as explored in e.g., Grosser, Benjamin. 2014. "What Do Metrics Want? How Quantification Prescribes Social Interaction on Facebook." Computational Culture (4). http://computationalculture.net/article/what-do-metrics-want.) In this sense what you call "the interplay between organic and machinic domains" and how it the "rhythm acts as a connective tissue bridging disparate systems" in the "dynamic process of individuation" is related to larger elements of contemporary platform/interface culture which you of course also point to with Google Maps and Strava. It makes me think about what happens, if the sensorial, embodied presence is included as also an aesthetic reflection? Is there a potential of a liberatory, emancipative process in the rave, a way to learn seeing, hearing, being and living with this techno-rythmic interface culture? A way to perceive the physical, embodied and cognitive potential manipulation and finding ways to outlive this in liberatory ways? Is the rave a contemporary version of what Kracauer described as the mass ornament, where you as participant and audience experience what you normally cannot see: the (post-)industrial, platformized production process? (Kracauer, Siegfried. 1977. Das Ornament der Masse. Vol. 371Suhrkamp Taschenbuch. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp./ Kracauer, Siegfried. 1995. The Mass Ornament. Translated by Thomas Y. Levin. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.) I know this is a lot and more than you can possibly integrate in this document, though perhaps relevant for further reworking. Looking forward to meeting and discussing!